Login | April 24, 2024
9th District reverses Medina County sex case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: November 19, 2019
The 9th District Court of Appeals has reversed the convictions of a man who had sexual relations with an underage girl at a high school graduation party.
Tomas Castaneda, 18, appealed his convictions for sexual battery and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor from the Medina County trial court.
Castaneda did not know the girl was under the age of 16 or that she was substantially impaired, appellate Judge Jennifer Hensal said in her recent opinion.
According to case summary, the alleged victim had just completed her sophomore year of high school, and was 15 years and 10 months old at the time of the party. The alleged victim admitted that she drank several alcoholic beverages at the party, which lasted into the early hours of the morning.
Castaneda arrived at the party after the alleged victim and left the party at one point. When he returned around 4:00 a.m., the alleged victim’s friend, E.R., was in the bathroom getting sick.
E.R. testified the alleged victim and Castaneda had been kissing on the living room couch. After hearing Castaneda suggest that he and the alleged victim have sex, E.R. told him no because the victim had been drinking. E.R. then fell asleep.
The alleged victim testified that Castaneda pulled her shorts off and inserted his finger into her vagina, and that she turned down his offer to have sex. The alleged victim said she then fell asleep and Castaneda slept elsewhere in the house.
When she awoke, the alleged victim noticed that her shorts were on backwards, and that
her underwear was behind a pillow on the couch. Castaneda called police before they contacted him and voluntarily gave a video-recorded statement about the events that transpired. According to his recorded statement, which the state played for the jury, Castaneda did not know whether the victim had been drinking because he did not drink with her at the party. He also indicated he did not know the victim was 15 years old because everyone else at the party was over 18. According to him, everything that occurred was consensual.
However, a jury found him guilty of both counts.
On appeal, Castaneda argued the state presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The appellate panel agreed.
“The evidence presented at trial indicated that the victim and Mr. Castaneda did not go to the same high school, that they did not know each other prior to the party, and that – other than being briefly introduced – they did not talk at the party until they were on the living room couch together,” Hensal wrote in her opinion. “The victim acknowledged that most, if not everyone, at the party was 18 years old or older. She testified that she talked to some people at the party about the fact that she was younger than them, but acknowledged that she never talked to Mr. Castaneda about her age or what grade she was in.”
The appellate court also found Casteneda was not reckless because there was no testimony that the victim looked young for her age, or any other reason for Castaneda to suspect the girl was younger than the other party attendees.
The panel also determined there was insufficient evidence for the sexual battery conviction because neither the victim nor E.R. testified that the alleged victim’s speech was slurred, that she was stumbling or falling, or that she had other signs of intoxication.
“There was no dispute at trial that Mr. Castaneda engaged in sexual conduct with the victim, who was not his spouse. The issue at trial, therefore, was whether the state presented sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Castaneda knew that the victim was substantially impaired. We conclude that it did not,” Hensal added. “This court has acknowledged that intoxication does not always equate to substantial impairment.” (State v. Hansing, 2019, Ohio-739).
“… The record indicates that the victim and Mr. Castaneda did not drink together at the party, and that Mr. Castaneda was not present when the victim got sick. At most, the record indicates that Mr.
Castaneda knew the victim had been drinking. While this court does not condone the events that transpired or wish to appear insensitive or unsympathetic to victims of sexually based offenses, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence asks the question of whether the state met its legal burden. Under these facts, it did not.”
Appellate judges Lynne Callahan and Donna Carr concurred.
The case is cited State v. Castaneda, 2019-Ohio-4389